Aim: Analyze vulnerabilities of agriculture livelihoods at the provincial level; identify key risks, root causes, and adaptation strategies.

Approach: Define locations with similar biophysical and socio-economic characteristics as ‘typologies’ using PCA & K-means clustering.

Area of Interest: South Sulawesi province

Unit of Analysis: Sub-district (Kecamatan)

Loadings Interpretation

PC1: Predominantly Demography & Disaster Risk

PC2: Predominantly Climate Features

PC3: Predominantly Distance Features

The first three principal components, colored by cluster

Cluster Validation

• The second lowest household density after rural areas.

• Limited accessibility to land-based livelihoods.

• Economy predominantly relies on marine resources and maritime transport.

• Inadequate health, education facilities, and market access.

• Driest area in South Sulawesi with potential freshwater scarcity.

• High drought indices with significant predicted rainfall decrease.

• Over 40% of the population is underprivileged.

• Mostly situated in warm lowlands; a 1°C temperature rise could be impactful.

• Rural areas in South Sulawesi with the lowest household density.

• Mountainous regions overlapping with protected areas, last bastions of unique Wallacean biodiversity.

• High rainfall, low drought vulnerability (AI = 0.3).

• In close proximity to forests, deforestation sites, and areas previously affected by fires.

• Furthest from plantation concessions and limited road and river access.

• Minimal changes in rainfall but the highest rate of temperature increase.

• Highest erosion risk; lowest flood risk.

• Almost 50% of the population falls in the bottom 40% economic bracket.

• Close to plantations, forests, and deforestation sites.

• Furthest from previously burned areas in Sulawesi.

• Medium household density per sub-district.

• Moderate flood risk.

• Moderate extent of irrigation.

• Second highest risk of erosion and landslides after inland areas.

• Highest rate of deforestation.

• High risk of rainfall reduction, though not classified as arid.

• About 1/3 of the population falls in the bottom 40% economic bracket.

• Highest arable land coverage, with predominant irrigated areas.

• Highest smallholder land ownership.

• Second closest proximity to burned areas after urban regions.

• Second highest access to roads and rivers following urban areas.

• Second highest household density per district after urban regions; similar trend observed in health and education facilities.

• Least proximity to forests due to limited forest cover.

• Primarily located in lowlands; a temperature rise of 1.41°C significantly impacts this already warm region.

• Expected to experience the most significant rainfall decrease (-84.31 mm) among typologies, making it the most drought-prone.

• Flood risks during the rainy season, aggravated by minimal remaining forest cover.

• High household density, with over a third belonging to the bottom 40% economic bracket.

• Smallest area coverage (3%) with least arable land.

• Lowest smallholder land ownership, following island regions.

• Second closest proximity to burned areas after semi-urban regions.

• Best access to roads and rivers.

• Highest household density per district.

• Easy access to health facilities, supermarkets, universities, and hospitals. However, each unit caters to a large number of households.

• Only 15.1% of households fall within the bottom 40% economic bracket.

• Warmest current temperatures compared to other regions; a rise of 1.43°C significantly impacts underprivileged local residents.

• High flood risk, given many urban areas are near rivers.

• Heavily reliant on food supplies from other regions.

1 – Most Vulnerable: Located closest to oil palm plantations and factories, mining areas, and roads; has the largest shrub area per village; furthest from deforestation and has the lowest deforestation rate; has the smallest percentage of forested areas per village; high population.

2 – Highly Vulnerable: Located closest to burnt areas; has the largest percentage of oil palm area per village; situated nearer to oil palm concession areas and rubber factories; has the largest percentage of water bodies (lakes, rivers); has a lower deforestation rate but is located closer to deforestation areas; high population.

3 – Moderately Vulnerable: Located closest to rivers; has a larger percentage of oil palm area per village; situated slightly farther from oil palm companies and mining areas; has a larger percentage of forested and shrub areas per village; medium population.

4 – Less Vulnerable: Closest to deforestation areas and has the highest deforestation rate; located furthest from rivers; most distant from burnt areas; slightly closer to forested areas; slightly farther from oil palm concession areas; low population.

5 – Least Vulnerable: Has the largest percentage of forested areas per village; most remote; has the smallest percentage of shrub areas and oil palm areas per village; located closer to rivers and forested areas; has the lowest village population.

Stashed changes | 1 | Distance to infrastructure | Distance to oil palm plantation | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 2 | Distance to infrastructure | Distance to roads | BIG | | 3 | Distance to infrastructure | Distance to a rubber factory | ICRAF | | 4 | Distance to infrastructure | Distance to oil palm factory | ICRAF | | 5 | Distance to natural resources | Distance to forest | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 6 | Distance to natural resources | Distance to river | BIG | | 7 | Distance to natural resources | Distance to mining areas | BIG | | 8 | Distance to hazards area | Distance to burnt areas | KLHK 2015 | | 9 | Land use and land cover | % area of oil palm per village | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 10 | Land use and land cover | % of forested areas per village | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 11 | Land use and land cover | % of shrubs areas per village | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 12 | Land use and land cover | % forested areas per district compared to district areas | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 13 | Land use and land cover | % oil palm areas at district level compare | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 14 | Land use and land cover | % water body compared to district areas | Badan Informasi Geospatial (BIG), Geospatial Information Agency of Indonesia | | 15 | Land use and land cover | Distance to deforestation | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 16 | Land use and land cover | Deforestation area | Landcover map 2017 from MoEF | | 17 | Hazards | Flood incidence | Village Potentials, Statistics Indonesia 2018 | | 18 | Hazards | Heavy flood incidence | Village Potentials, Statistics Indonesia 2018 | | 19 | Hazards | Fire incidences | Village Potentials, Statistics Indonesia 2018 | | 20 | Hazards | Drought incidences | Village Potentials, Statistics Indonesia 2018 | | 21 | Demography | Village population | Village Potentials, Statistics Indonesia 2018 | | 22 | Distance to infrastructure | Distance to oil palm concession areas | Department of Estate Crops, West Kalimantan Province |

: {.striped .hover}

Typology 1: High fire occurrences in protected areas, both with and without drainage. Lowest rates of deforestation, degradation, and plantation expansion. Low population and poverty, closest to cities with easy access.

Typology 2: High fire occurrences in cultivated areas, both with and without drainage. High deforestation rate, low degradation, and minimal plantation expansion. Highest population and poverty, near cities with easy access.

Typology 3: Fires occur in both cultivated and protected areas, irrespective of drainage. Highest rates of deforestation, degradation, and plantation expansion. Low population and poverty, furthest from cities with challenging access.

Typology 4: Most frequent fires in protected areas, regardless of drainage. Low deforestation, high degradation, and significant plantation expansion. Low population and poverty, far from cities with very limited access.

Typology 5: Most frequent fires in cultivated areas, irrespective of drainage. Low deforestation, high degradation, and significant plantation expansion. Low population and poverty, remote from cities with challenging access.

Stashed changes | 1 | - Community awareness about the importance of the peat ecosystem, collaborating with district and provincial governments.

- Activities of the Peatland Stewardship Village aimed at increasing income and creating sources of livelihood for the community. | Conducted in synergy with district/city governments. | Directed at non-agricultural livelihood sources (off-farm). Local industries that exist need support. | | 2 | Peatland Stewardship Village is executed in an integrated manner in partnership with HTI companies and palm oil plantations. The goal is to enhance community access. | Strengthening farmers’ livelihoods to protect the remaining peat ecosystems. Formulation of alternative livelihood sources. | Livelihood sources oriented towards peat-friendly agriculture, mixed plantations combined with non-agricultural livelihood sources. | | 3 | Peatland Stewardship Village is oriented towards fire prevention; conducted in an integrated manner in partnership with HTI companies and palm oil plantations. | Strengthening farmers’ livelihoods through partnerships with plantation and HTI companies. Livelihoods aimed at forest and land fire prevention. | Livelihood sources oriented towards peat-friendly agriculture and plantations combined with fisheries and livestock. | | 4 | Peatland Stewardship Village geared towards fire prevention; enhancing community access to markets and high-economic value commodities. | Strengthening farmers’ livelihoods through partnerships with plantation and HTI companies. Emphasis on preventing forest and land fires. | Livelihood sources focused on peat-friendly agriculture and plantations combined with fisheries and livestock. | | 5 | Peatland Stewardship Village focused on fire prevention; enhancing community access to markets and commodities of high economic value. | Strengthening farmers’ livelihoods through partnerships with plantation and HTI companies. Emphasis on preventing forest and land fires. | Livelihood sources focused on peat-friendly agriculture and plantations combined with fisheries and livestock. |

: Classification of peat ecosystem revitalization actions in South Sumatra province {.striped .hover}